FIE- School of Engineering 1

Taylor’s University

Practical 3-Projectile Motion

Name : Natasha Anne Binti Mohammed Noor Azam

Student ID : 0326416

Group Members : 1. Natasha Anne Binti Mohammed Noor Azam

2. Mong Jia Ai

2. Saniika A/Z Renganadan

2. Shoban Raja A/L Sivaji Raja

Date of Experiment:27th April 2016

Report due date: 4th May 2016
Foundation of Science Report submission date: 4th May 2016
Checked by:
School of Science
Item/marks
Taylor’s University Format/10
Abstract and Introduction/10
Malaysia Figures and Diagrams/15
Materials and Method/10
Results Discussions/45
Contents References/10
Total
FIE- School of Engineering 2
Taylor’s University

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................3

1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................3

2.0 Experimental Design.................................................................................................................5

2.1 Materials................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Methods..................................................................................................................................5

2.3 Procedure...............................................................................................................................5

3.0 Results and Discussion..............................................................................................................7

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................7

References.......................................................................................................................................8
FIE- School of Engineering 3
Taylor’s University

ABSTRACT

This manual or lab report template is intended to provide general instructions for preparing lab
reports. An abstract is a section that provides a concise summary of the entire lab report and
present the major conclusions derived from experimental investigations as well. Typically,
abstracts are written after the other sections in the entire lab report has been finalised.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The main idea involved with projectile motion is quite simple but deep – the motions of a
projectile in the horizontal and vertical directions are entirely independent of one another;
meaning that they can each be described separately as one-dimensional motions. Thus if a ball is
thrown horizontally (= 0°) with a speed v0, once launched, it continues to move with speed v0 in
the horizontal direction no matter what happens to its speed in the vertical direction.

Motion in the vertical direction however, experiences an acceleration of g = 9.8m/s2 in the

downward direction due to the gravitational attraction of the earth. If a ball is thrown upwards at
some angle, its initial vertical component of velocity v0y is positive in the coordinate system we
are using here. Once launched, its vertical velocity component vy steadily decreases to zero, and
then becomes negative as it falls back to earth. Coupled with the constant horizontal component
of velocity v0x, this results in a parabolic trajectory as illustrated in Fig. 3.1.

• Fig. 3.1 Parabolic trajectory

FIE- School of Engineering 4
Taylor’s University

This experiment will be split into two parts. Part A will examine how the range of a projectile
motion be affected by the angle of the launch whereas Part B will be to determine the initial
launch velocity of the projectile motion.

The four basic rectilinear kinematics equations (sometimes known as the SUVAT equations) are
essential to deriving the mathematics of projectile motions. Chiefly, there are 4 parameters that
are of concern when it comes to projectile motion and these are listed below with the equation
necessary to calculate them.

Assume that an object is launched from an angle of θ with an initial velocity of v 0 where the
horizontal component of this velocity will be v0cosθ and the vertical component will be v0sinθ.

• Time taken for a projectile to reach its maximum height, t.

(1)

• Total time of flight, T.

(2)

• Maximum height attained by projectile, H.

(3)
FIE- School of Engineering 5
Taylor’s University

• The range of the projectile motion, R.

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

2.1 Materials

 Projectile Launcher

 Metal Ball

 Measuring Tape

 Metre Rule

 Carbon Paper

 A4 Papers

 Wooden Board

2.2 Methods

In experiment part A, we started by clamping down the projectile launcher to the side of a lab
table as we made sure that the bold is tightened. On the adjacent table, we laid down a wooden
board. Then, we covered it with 6 A4 papers taped down to the board to keep them in place. We
then covered the A4 papers with carbon papers. We adjusted the projectile launcher to an angle
of 30°. We then loaded the metal ball into the launcher and triggered the launcher. Furthermore,
we repeated the launch at the same angle twice to obtain an average measurement. When the
metal ball misses the spot where there is carbon paper, we repeated the launch after shifting the
carbon paper to a more ideal position. We shifted aside the carbon paper to have a look at the
marking left by the metal ball on the A4 paper. We measured the distance of the projectile using
a measuring tape and crossed out the previous markings to avoid confusion. We recorded the
results into Table 3.1. Then, we repeated the experiment but with launch angles up to 70 degrees
in intervals of 10 degrees for each repetition.

In part B, we set up the experiment by clamping the projectile launcher to the side of a lab table
but this time the angle is adjusted to 0 degrees. Next, we set up A wooden board, A4 papers and
FIE- School of Engineering 6
Taylor’s University

carbon papers on the floor directly in front of the projectile launcher. Furthermore, we loaded the
metal ball was into the launcher and triggered the launch. We recorded the distance of the
impression and repeated the launch 2 more times. We tabulated the results in a table such as the
one shown in Table 3.2 and the average reading was acquired to determine the initial launch
velocity.

2.3 Procedure

PART A

1. The experiment was set up by the projectile launcher clamped to the side of a lab table and
on the adjacent table, the wooden board laid with the A4 papers taped above it. Carbon Paper
was laid above the A4 papers.

2. The projectile launcher was adjusted to a launch angle of 30°.

3. The metal ball was loaded into the launcher and the launch was triggered.

4. The launch was repeated twice while the angle was kept constant. If the ball fails to hit the
spot where there is carbon paper, the launch was repeated after shifting the carbon paper into
a more ideal position.

5. The carbon paper was removed from the A4 paper and the impressions made by the metal
ball was noted. A measuring tape was used to measure the distance of the projectile.

6. The results were tabulated in a table such as the one shown in Table 3.1.

7. The experiment was repeated but the launch angles increased up to 70 degrees in intervals of
10 degrees for each repetition.

PART B

1. The experiment was set up by clamping the projectile launcher to the side of the lab table but
adjust the launch angle to 0 degrees. A wooden board, A4 papers and carbon papers was set
up on the floor directly in front of the projectile launcher.

2. The metal ball was loaded into the launcher and the launch was triggered.

3. The distance of the impression was recorded and the launch was repeated 2 more times.
FIE- School of Engineering 7
Taylor’s University

4. The results were tabulated in a table such as the one shown in Table 3.2 and the average
reading was acquired to determine the initial launch velocity.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TABLE 3.1

AVERAGE TOTAL THEORETICA

ANGLE R1 (M) R2 (M) R3 (M) R (M ) FLIGHT L RANGE (M)
TIME, T (S)
30 2.00 1.89 1.94 1.94
40 2.15 2.08 2.05 2.09
50 1.98 1.97 1.98 1.98
60 1.66 1.72 1.78 1.72
70 1.26 1.32 1.24 1.27

TABLE 3.2

INITIAL

HEIGHT, Y AVERAGE R VELOCITY,

R1 (M) R2 (M) R3 (M)
(M) (M ) V0

(M/S)
0.94 2.04 2.08 2.03 2.05
FIE- School of Engineering 8
Taylor’s University

DISCUSSION

1. What is the initial launch velocity of the projectile? Explain (by showing calculation steps)
how you arrived at that answer.

2. What is the launch angle that will give the highest range? Explain.

3. Find the expression for the time it take a projectile that starts at ground height h 0 = 0 to
return to the ground h = 0, by considering the vertical component of velocity v y and
acceleration due to gravity g = 9.8m/s2.

4. Plot the graphs of theoretical range against angle and experimental range against angle.
Compare and comment on the differences and suggest a reason for why this difference
exists.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The report may be concluded by presenting answers to the problems stated in the introduction.
Conclusions may be based on the analysis presented in the previous section and use this to
reaffirm the stated results in the abstract. Understand that the conclusions from one experiment
form basis to perform future experiments. Show an awareness of the limitations of the
experiment and explain the rationale behind the generalizations from the results. Clearly explain
any ambiguities or complications encountered during the experiment as this is very useful in
modifying the experiments in the future.

Suggest possible improvements to the experiment and describe these enhancements in detail.
Restate the problem under investigation and conclude with a condensed summary of the solution
obtained from the experimental investigation.

REFERENCES

Reference styles that can be used are IEEE or the Harvard referencing style. The examples
below use the Harvard Referencing Style. You may opt to use Microsoft Word’s build in
referencing system to achieve this or may type it manually.

Seborg, D. E., 2004. Process Dynamics and Control. John Wiley. New Jersey.

Marwan M. Shamel, 2012. Chemical Engineering Lab Sheet: Response of a Feedback

Temperature Control System. Taylor’s University. Malaysia.